In the wake of the attacks on a San Bernardino social services center America once again finds itself talking past itself regarding the issue of the 2nd Amendment. Horrific as they may be, mass shootings no longer produce shock and concern, but instead provide politicians and the media with the chance to chide those with differing political beliefs to a level that is now including personal insults and, worse, claims that the 'other' side is unpatriotic or even treasonous.
For all of the talk about how "this cannot become normal" (and mass shootings should not be normal) the reality is that the new "normal" is division and hopelessness rather than resolve and reflection. We have become a Nation of political sycophants who believe, in our heart of hearts, that our opposition is acting with the worst of intentions.
This does not bode well for an actual solution, because the two sides are intractably in opposition on the basic issuance of rights, and the reason behind the protective Amendments which guarantee the same.
At the heart of the issue, as with most current issues, is the differing opinions of the two sides as to the role of Government, and what protections are needed to ensure said role.
On the Right, the 2nd Amendment (and the 1st) are held inviolate. The "right" to keep and bear arms is a necessary mechanism to ensure the spread of tyranny on the part of the Government against the people. The Right also largely holds the belief that the rights codified within the Bill of Rights are "granted by God" and that the State has only limited power to limit them.
On the Left, the rights of the people are granted and held in trust by the Government. The "right" to keep and bear arms is only allowed so far as the ruling powers believe them to exist within strictly defined limits that can change as time, and threats progress. This is why you are currently seeing movements to restrict not only free speech, but guns, due process, right to counsel, rights to trial and rights against self incrimination.
The obstacle that will not be resolved, no matter the amount of civic debate, is both sides core belief on what the government is, and what role it should play in determining people's actions, beliefs and daily activities.
Unfortunately, there is little consistency among our politicians other than an overwhelming desire to win elections, and pander to those who would place and keep them in office. I call this the battle between the Right's "Social Puritanism" and the Left's "Social Fascism". Neither label is meant to be flattering.
Increasingly, the GOP operates under the belief that the government should govern, except on matters of morality where it should rule. Campaign money aside, the Right prefers that commerce be allowed to make it's own way with limited government interference, except in cases where politicians have the opportunity to profit and the "public good" is reached through tax credits and corporate welfare that benefits donors.
In contrast to this the Left believes that the government should rule. It operates under the belief that the political machine should control the economy to produce an outcome that is, in it's mind, more equitable and which "spreads the wealth" to certain economic and demographic classes from whom it is attempting to buy votes. It also believes that a key role of the government is to act as the morality police, ensuring that the citizenry act and think in a way that is currently preferred, but which can (and does) change as political needs change with the times.
It was Chris Rock who famously said "Barack Obama is America's Daddy" illustrating the idea of rule over governance, and Rick Perry who said "I want the Federal Government to be so inconsequential that you don't notice it" illustrating governance over rule.
Using this context you realize quickly why the gun debate is going nowhere, and why the ultimate resolution is not going to be pretty. If you believe that the 'right to bear arms' is not for means of personal protection but as a hedge against government overreach, then any government move to restrict your ability to arm yourself is seen as a first step down the slippery-slope to tyranny.
Contrarily, if you believe the Government to be a benevolent ruler whose job it is to apply equality to all, then you believe gun ownership, and the ability to resist diktats, to be an affront to the ruling power of those in charge and will not accept anything less than full compliance.
These are not points that should be taken lightly or dismissed by a media who is already on the side that falls against public freedom. (After all, in their more honest moments, many in the media think that the 1st amendment only applies to them, and not the public as a whole).
Where all of this falls down of course is in the operation of the bureaucracy, regardless of which school of thought our elected officials prescribe to. In fact, the Federal bureaucracy views itself as the hammer of justice in all cases big and small. And when you are the hammer, you tend to view everyone as a nail. Organizations such as the IRS, ATF, FDA, NSA, TSA and others do not view themselves as regulators, the object of their operations is not to treat citizens fairly and equitably, it is to enforce the rule of the government and dictate to companies and individuals as to how they are to comply. If you don't believe this, then you have not had dealings with a Federal regulatory agency.
A larger problem occurs when the bureaucracy acts in a way that is intentionally political, as was the case with Lois Lerner and the IRS. If benign rule is the tent that progressive thought operates under then the fair application of bureaucratic power is the tent pole that is most likely to fail. Unelected bureaucrats, operating with little oversight, under an executive who passively encourages targeting of political enemies is the stuff of Banana Republics and should cause everyone, regardless of political affiliation, a moments pause.
Currently the public sentiment seems to be shifting gradually toward the idea that the government is designed to rule, and that citizens can rely on them to provide for their needs in an equitable, fair manner. The loss of governing is seen in both parties in statements that "WE (royal) must do something to fix this." The idea being that only the government can solve people's problems and that they will always find the way that does it the best, with no unintended consequences, and for the good of all. That their track-record for accomplishing this is poor does not enter into their thinking one iota.
For all of the historical revisionism surrounding it the idea behind the American Revolution was that citizens should be free, have the ability to redress grievances against their government, and should have the ability to act in self-determination regarding their wealth and prosperity. The authorship of the Constitution, the grand American Experiment, codified those beliefs into law. No, it was not a perfect document (To form a 'more perfect' union etc.) and it has been tweaked along the way to live up to the ideals of the founders, especially in the area of slavery, women's suffrage etc.
But the ideological shortcomings of the day don't invalidate the entirety of the vision. The idea that people are governed by elected representatives, rather than ruled by a Monarchy, is still a valid one today. As such most of the Constitution has proven its mettle over the course of almost 300 years. In fact, some of the worst failures (prohibition, internments) have been efforts to strip citizens of their rights rather than expand them. That is a historical lesson that should not be forgotten as the modern world descends into chaos.
Freedom has always been the great hypothesis of the American Experiment. For better or for worse it is the single thing that has kept more people coming into this country rather than abandoning it for distant shores. If the concept of governance falls to the reality of Rule then it is safe to say that the grand experiment has been a failure, and that the failure is going to happen on our watch.
